To be quite angry about proposed changes to 3-4yo childcare- only for ALL working parents?

[AcademicOwl]

Ok, Queen's speech.
Proposal to increase 'free'* childcare to 30hrs for 3-4 year olds.

BUT only if all parents working.

As I understand, the current provision for 3-4 yo there are no caveats re parents working. So ok for SAHMs & SAHDs. Gives children chance to socialise pre-school, parents to find feet again and possibly find work.

I've got 2 DC under 5, and worked 3 days a week, so understand costs of childcare (I.e. Two in childcare = more than I earn by about £200pcm). Expecting DC 3 in Oct, so was considering a year out on a career break... Help make costs manageable, support family whilst they are titchy, etc. but DC 2 prob wouldn't be eligible for 'free' childcare if I do that.

Can't help but feel this is discriminating against SAHPs & again undervaluing the importance of parenting choices and the family unit...

What'd you want to bet they'll remove current 'free' provision?

*'free' because in our patch it isn't. The nursery work out how much money it contributes to your monthly bill, then you have to make up difference.and, yes, they are allowed to do that... I investigated at length a couple of years ago.

Grrrr!!!!

Don't be so ridiculous most of us on this thread are women and working.

Tanith - people are more likely to afford savings and a pension if they are in employment. Investment in childcare increases people in employment.

I just find it a tad depressing that when women have been campaigning for years for better access to childcare provision to enable them fo work, the moment govt policy actually responds to that, the whiners start protesting that it's 'not fair', which usually just means it's something they personally won't benefit from. It won't affect them adversely, they can just ignore it and not use it if they choose- but no, they'd rather froth with the green eyed monster than see someone else benefit from a policy which benefits the economy.

And I speak as someone who won't benefit either- my kids are long past childcare, so we had to pay all of ours ourselves. Neither did we benefit from all the other policies which make life better these days, such as year long maternity leave and paternity leave. But I don't begrudge other people getting those.

Very depressing to see people who can't or won't see beyond their own situation, and who don't want policies which will strengthen the economy because, shock horror, they might make life a teensy bit easier for working families

Agree 32percentcharged

Top post, 32% !!

And considering it costs the state (ie all of us) around £150,000 (or something around that) for every child born, we're all still contributing to raising our children.

Me too. Great post. Sums it all up perfectly!

Personally I would rather the government funded up to 6 weeks of 30h a week childcare in the school holidays for children in reception to Y8 for working households to close the gap between the school holidays and holiday allowance in a job.

My children are older than this so I wouldn't personally benefit but I think as a society it would being the most benefit to both children and parents.

6 weeks per year that is.

Sorry disagreeing with you is not the green eyed monster.I will benefit and can see huge amount of negatives.

Wasting money in austerity is madness and some of this is a waste. Wealthy families don't need it or free school meals. Frankly I'd rather they put any surplus cash they into upping the threshold for fsm so more hungry kids in secondary can benefit or giving those less well off more help with childcare of pump it into the NHS.Enabling cleaners and holidays for the wealthy is sheer madness.

That said I agree whole heartedly with sahp getting 15 hours in pre school education but they don't need more than the 30 unless they're students or carers.

IB The problem with means testing is that it is expensive, difficult and often unfair which is why the winter fuel allowance and bus passes for OAPs are also for all.
Again, people working means people paying taxes which means the NHS get money too. I am no economist but this is not rocket science.

I agree funding for wraparound care in schools should also be increased but I think it's the pre school years which are the most crippling in terms of cost. Enabling women to work during the pre school years means that they are more likely to stay in their career and maintain their earning potential which again makes them more likely to be able to fund childcare during the school years.

littlebook we already have means testing for childcare so we wouldn't need a hugely expensive new system, we would just need to increase the thresholds so that more families can benefit.

Ivy you don't seem to understand that this is not just about helping WOHP out- its about increasing revenue ,reducing the national debt and assisting those who would love to WOH to have a chance to do so.
Keeping those already trained and qualified in work, that they want to do.
It gives more women choice- if they want to SAH in spite of this they will.

They means test CB so it isn't impossible and again not all pay tax.Many will be costing the state more now they're working.Also many would like their family to have a period with a sahp as they feel it would benefit their children.Not all parents have a burning desire to have 2x wp during their dc's entire childhood.

I hope we see some measures to facilitate the above too.

School holiday care subsidies would be great, but it pales into insignificance beside the cost of pre-school care.

The only parents I've ever known complain about the cost of summer holiday care is those who didn't work until their children were all in school. Anyone who's paid for pre-school care breathes a huge sigh of relief when the kids start school and it's only before/after school and holiday care that's needed.

32 percent - not sure I totally agree there. I paid for 3 lots of pre school care (briefly) but was paying for 2 lots for years and years because of te way my kids were spaced out and salso because where I live, the kids didn't start school till January rather than in September (all summer born). I also got minimal maternity leave. The cost (and the availability) pf summer care was still an issue for us while we needed it. The cost was proportionately much higher than the full time care had been, and the availability was poor. Yes, we were paying less per year but it was still difficult to find organise and then pay for (and I was a high earner). Where there are subsidies there will be increased provision (well - you'd think) which might make it easier even for those who don't qualify for subsidy to access it.

Does anybody know how it will work anyway?
if it's going to mean lowering ratio's over crowded settings, cheaper quality care who would want it anyway.
Some nurseries are bad enough anyway without the extra dc and more limited space.
Also, won't most people want the same hours? I don't know how many will cope tbh and pretty sure many won't be able to provide any more places due to size, costs, training staff etc.

I'm guessing that must be the exception though... The most expensive form of care is normally for under 12 months olds. I remember breathing a sigh of relief when mine progressed from the 'baby room' to 'toddler room' at nursery because it was marginally cheaper!!
I am totally with you on the logistics of care when they reach school age... It can be harder to access and organise, and in many ways the days of an 8am drop off at nursery where they will be all day, rather than juggling wraparound care, is easier.

But ultimately, for the vast majority it must be far cheaper once the kids are in school, if you calculate your costs over the entire year and not just singling out August which is likely to be an expensive month.

Besides, for many nurseries (certainly ours) you pay full whack all year round anyway- there's no reduction just because you're on leave and don't need to use childcare.

Surely by your own reckoning though Ivy they should be frugal and save to enable this

I just love it when people post with "I'm not an economist, but..."

I do have some background in economics, and I think it's flawed to only see value for the wider economy in those individuals who only pay tax. Its a very masculine model of what's valuable and fails to capture all the other intangible stuff which is part of parenting.

I very much think society should be helping working parents; I just worry that the early years education side will get lost. Plus I come back to the story it sells about SAHP (who usually work incredibly hard but risk getting relegated to 'scrounger' status, which is completely unreasonable). If you don't believe the last one, consider the freeze in maternity allowance... Which was very much bracketed in with job seekers allowance, etc.

But the 'other intangible stuff' of parenting which you speak of... What has that got to do with WOH or SAH?

I would completely agree that what is valuable to society (and govt) is good parenting: raising children to be positive and productive members of society. But I can't see the relevance of WOH/SAH there. Good (or bad!) parenting is not the preserve of either group

I don't have a problem with it if it allows parents to work. But it should be means tested. Free school meals should be means tested too.

I think it should be funded out of necessity, not choice as other benefits are.
So if you can manage on one wage you shouldn't receive any help.
Then if a couple decide to split working hours to two p/t wages it's up to them.
You can't carry on supporting those who don't need it when we are supposed to be capping benefits.

Morethan, why begrudge childcare help where all adults work when you have taken tax credits for years as you don't work. The cost of 30 hours free childcare pre school is a lot less than tax credits and whatever came before it that you claimed.

After the free 30 hours cease those workers will still be paying tax and paying their own way.